Oh, so you want to “debate” while suspending the meaning of words and abandoning any principled stance. Okay, at least I understand you better now. Can I play, too? Here goes: Obama is a rapist and a pedophile.
:rolleyes:
You mean like Ruby Ridge and Waco? :rolleyes:
I don’t think one family in a log cabin qualifies as a “group” within the context of DT’s comment.
How about murder camps?
Eh? Why did you bring up Jane Fonda?
The FBI infiltrated and broke up the Ku Klux Klan. That’s a large right-wing extremist group.
I think you’re missing the point here, buddy. Here it is:
[QUOTE=me]
Agree on principle, **but speaking for me I just ** dont give much of a sh-t in this particular situation. The Tea-partiers are way out of line and have been for quite some time. They’re about to do serious damage to the economy - the world economy even - or else pervert the political process.
They deserve to be - need to be - named and shamed. I just dont give a rats as if every invective they get thrown their way is perfectly fair or not. I know for sure most of them wouldnt even ask themselves the question if the shoe was on the other foot (as it usually is).
[/QUOTE]
(Bolding added)
IOW, how I feel and nothing else. Clear as day. I wasn’t trying to prove anything to anyone; I gave the Teapartiers a piece of my mind. It’s up to anyone who’s even interested enough in my feelings on the subject to consider it, to decide for themselves if they feel the same way or if they don’t.
So you trying to tie that in with debating and whatever rules should apply to when debating, is misguided and neither here nor there. But you knew that, didn’t you?
(In addition: a friendly word of advise. Your attempt to play “the game” - whatever that is - was at least an order of magnitude more inflammatory than anything I’ve ever said, in this particular forum at least.)
duplicate post of stuff already said
Liberals have often observed that behind the right’s patriotic front they actually have deep disdain for America’s institutions and views on things like equal rights, environmentalism, and so on. So really, they conclude, the right actually hates America.
It’s always been pithy, and hits pretty close to home in many cases, but just wait around until “the people” vote against them. Then you’ll see what they think of America (which also may be true, I suppose, but if we’re gonna have a jingo-off…)
If Americans being dumb is treason, you may as well cancel the whole country.
Are the Tea Partiers conducting activities that fall within the (as Der Trihs has pointed out) very limited definition of treason? No, after all, if the Bush Administration deliberately blowing the cover of a CIA operative involved in preventing nuclear proliferation was not treason, very little IS treason (the Plame affair). I mean, you want to talk about giving aid and comfort to the enemy … handing over to various foreign governments all her contacts … oh that was aiding if anything ever was, and yet, it was not treason.
Now is the Tea Party engaging in activities that will weaken and harm the US government’s position in the world by making the government look both dangerous and ineffective? Yes, yes it is. So it’s not ACTUAL treason, but damn, it sure is ugly. It sure smells like undermining America. Just like the Bush Administration’s Plame affair.
I agree.
They do not meet the legal definition of Treason near as I can tell (IANAL).
Are they seeking to undermine the country? Absolutely. They are even brazen about it. They want the Federal government to shut down.
What they cannot succeed in doing legislatively via the democratic process they seek to achieve by forcing an effective collapse.
I do not think it is against the law as written but it should be.
If you’re in the fishing industry then harm would be delaying outside help for a month during an environmental crisis. If you’re in the oil business then harm would be holding off drilling with an arbitrary moratorium. If you’re unemployed it would be delaying a stimulus package to vote in a health care package and then rushing through a pork filled plan that did nothing but raise the debt.
The Tea Party is not the problem. The problem is a bunch of drunken politicians spending money like there’s no tomorrow. There is a tomorrow and the GOP has produced a bill that addresses the short term debt ceiling and the long term debt crisis. If the President wants to veto it that’s on him.
An old friend of mine (hmph, ex-friend, really) accused me of treason for publicly opposing the “surge” of troops to Iraq in 2007. He said that opposition to necessary support for combat troops was definitional of treason: it gave aid (?) and comfort to the enemy.
I heard the same a lot during the Viet Nam war. People who sponsor a constitutional amendment to ban symbolic flag-burning often say the same thing: “It gives support to our enemies.”
Strategically, there’s also a Golden Rule consideration: if the FBI starteed investigating conservative Congressmen today for their political speech…what’s to keep some future conservative administration from investigating liberal Congressmen for theirs? Scary precedent.
Trinopus
Oh, nonsense, that “golden rule” balance hasn’t ever applied to the right. If they can do that to liberal Congressmen, they will, regardless of whether or not the other side ever has.
It’s a difficult question.
What do you do if your beliefs do not stand up to scrutiny? What do you do if you know that your ideals would be seen as foolish or malicious if rationally debated?
Are you then justified in doing anything possible to avoid rationality and debate, including relying on propaganda and hostage-taking?
I would argue that you are not. Even though you are supposed to work for your beliefs, there has to be some type of framework to do it in. What the Tea Party is doing right now is outside of any viable framework.
Only one side is afraid of letting any semblance of rationality back into the political process.
Republicans know that they cannot possibly defend their ludicrously high spending (spending is only a problem when they aren’t in charge), combined with their even more ludicrous tax policies which harm the economy and shift the burden onto those who can least afford it.
Of course from their viewpoint, they are trying to prevent the Progressives from killing the country as well
It’s not treason, but I do think they want the recession to continue and the economy to tank so they can blame Obama. They’ve as much as admitted it. There’s a reason they were hoping to have the debt debate again in 2012, to keep up the illusion that the mess they created was a shared problem.
They also openly want to turn America into a third world style plutocracy.
I guess as long as you say you’re the real Americans and wear Ben Franklin wigs, it’s not treason to openly try to destroy the country.
Good question …
Though personally I do not see a publicity visit as rendering aid or comfort …
Why does this analogy survive? When I borrow to buy a house or a car, there is a definite term after which I will have repaid all interest and principle on the loan I have taken out. If the government borrowed in that way, for a limited long-term positive purpose, with a defined repayment plan, then there would be no need for a BBA.
If I am applying for more credit cards to simply make interest only payments on my mortgage or car, then all of my friends and neighbors would tell me how irresponsible I am being financially.
If I am putting groceries on my credit card (and not paying off in full that month) people would rightfully say that I am being financially irresponsible.
Why is the government not fiscally irresponsible for running perpetual deficits and that we NEED to take on more debt simply to fund our current debt?
Taking out a mortgage to buy a home is not in any way analogous to how the government borrows.